# The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Raj Narayan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 991
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-18
- **Case number:** Motor Accident Claim Petition No.180 of 2009
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-v-raj-narayan-ors-44975
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, Sri Ashok
Kumar Kesharwani, Sri Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, Sri
Janardan Prasad Patel, Sri Nripendra
Mishra

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident claim -
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) -
Sections 166 & 168 - Compensation -
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Deduction towards personal & living
expenses - Deceased a bachelor - 50%
of total income liable to deducted as
personal and living expenses (Para 8)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 168 - Selection of
Multiplier - Deceased aged about 18
years - Operative multiplier is 18 for the
age group of 15 - 20 (Para 9)

First Appeal from Order disposed off. (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Raj Narayan & Ors.
991
paragraph-33 of Sunita and Others
(Supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court is
relevant in this regard, which is extracted
below:-

"33. The site plan (Exh. 3) has
been produced in evidence before the
Tribunal by witness A.D. 1 (appellant
No.1 herein) and the record seems to
indicate that the accident occurred in the
middle of the road. However, the exact
location of the accident, as marked out in
the site plan, has not been explained
muchless proved through a competent
witness by the respondents to substantiate
their defence. Besides, the concerned
police official who prepared the site plan
has also not been examined. While the
existence of the site plan may not be in
doubt, it is difficult to accept the theory
propounded on the basis of the site plan
to record a finding against the appellants
regarding
negligence
attributable
to
deceased Sitaram, moreso in absence of
ocular evidence to prove and explain the
contents of the site plan."

21. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the learned tribunal though
has discussed the evidence in detail to
record the finding that the appellant has
failed to prove the involvement of the
vehicle in question in the alleged accident
but has not considered the aforesaid facts,
therefore the judgment passed by the
learned tribunal is not sustainable and is
liable to be set-aside with direction to the
concerned tribunal to decide the claim
petition afresh after considering the
evidence and material available on record
in accordance with law.

22. The appeal is, accordingly,
partly allowed. The judgment and order
dated
31.05.2010
passed
in
Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.180 of 2009
(Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab and
Another) by Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal / Additional District Judge,
Court No.6, Unnao is set-aside. The
matter is remitted back to the concerned
claims tribunal for deciding afresh in
accordance with law and the observations
made here-in-above expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of this order and the record.

23. No orders as to cost.

24. The lower court record shall be
remitted back to the concerned tribunal
within a period of fifteen days from today.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A991

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

FAFO No. 1517 of 2011

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Raj Narayan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, Sri Ashok
Kumar Kesharwani, Sri Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, Sri
Janardan Prasad Patel, Sri Nripendra
Mishra

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident claim -
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) -
Sections 166 & 168 - Compensation -
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Deduction towards personal & living
expenses - Deceased a bachelor - 50%
of total income liable to deducted as
personal and living expenses (Para 8)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 168 - Selection of
Multiplier - Deceased aged about 18
years - Operative multiplier is 18 for the
age group of 15 - 20 (Para 9)

First Appeal from Order disposed off. (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation
(2009) 6 SCC 121

2. National Insurance Company Vs Pranay
Sethi & others AIR 2017 SC 5157

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal has been filed by the
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against
the judgment and award dated 31.08.2009
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/District
Judge,
Jaunpur,
in
MACP No. 191 of 2006 (Raj Narayan and
another vs. Assistant Regional Manager,
UPSRTC Ltd., Mau, Depo and others) by
which the learned Tribunal has awarded
the compensation of Rs. 3,12,200/- with
6% simple interest per annum.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
impugned judgment and awarded, the
present appeal has been filed on the
ground that the judgment is against the
evidence on record, based on erroneous
finding on rash and negligent driving, the
driver of the offending bus was not
having legal and effective driving license
at the time of accident and the deceased
himself was negligent and the learned
tribunal
has
considered
the
wrong
multiplier and a deduction of 2/3 was not
made.

4. During the course of argument,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Insurance Company has submitted that
admittedly the deceased was of 18 years
old and was bachelor and, therefore, a
deduction of 50% should have been made.

5. It is admitted fact that the
deceased was 18 years old at the time of
accident and as per Rules, 50% of the
total income was bound to be deducted
against his personal expenses. The other
argument is about driving license of the
driver of the offending vehicle. The
learned Tribunal found that UPSRTC
submitted the driving license which was
valid on the date of accident.

6. On the contrary, from the side of
Insurance
Company,
the
report
of
surveyor was filed but the same was not
proved
and,
therefore,
the
learned
Tribunal decided that the driver of the
offending bus was having valid and
effective driving license at the time of
accident. As such, I do not find any
perversity or illegality in the finding.

7. It appears from the perusal of the
impugned judgment that the notional
income per day was determined as Rs.
100/- and it was also taken into
consideration by the learned Tribunal that
the deceased could get such income for 24
days in a month and, therefore, the
monthly income of the deceased was
determined to be Rs. 2400/- per month,
which means the annual income must be
Rs. 2,8,800/-. Therefore, the income on
the basis of which the amount of
4 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Raj Narayan & Ors.
993
compensation has been assessed is not at
all in higher side.

8. Learned Tribunal has deducted
1/3 against the personal expenses. Since,
the deceased was bachelor, in view of
judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
deduction should have been made of 50%,
therefore, applying the principle of
deduction, the annual income for the
purpose of determination of compensation
will be Rs. 14,400/-.

9. The deceased was aged about 18
years and the learned tribunal has applied
the multiplier of 16, whereas, in view of
Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 18
should have been available in his age. The
Supreme Court has laid down as below :-

"We therefore hold that the
multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma
Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),
which starts with an operative multiplier
of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and
21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for
every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for
36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years,
and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced
by two units for every five years, that is,
M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60
years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for
66 to 70 years."

10. The above view has further been
affirmed on the point of multiplier by the
Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi &
others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Applying the
multiplier
of
18,
the
amount
of
compensation reaches to Rs. 2,59,200/-.

11. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has
been held by the Supreme Court that a
proceeding before the Tribunal is in the
nature of inquiry in which a very few
thing is required to be established. The
Court has observed as under :-

"Basically only three facts need
to be established by the claimants for
assessing compensation in the case of
death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income
of the deceased; and the (c) the number of
dependents. The issues to be determined
by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions
to be made for arriving at the income; (ii)
the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased;
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with
reference of the age of the deceased."

12. In view of judgment in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), the funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-. Rs.
3000/- has been awarded in the head of
loss of love and affection. Adding all the
amounts, the total compensation comes to
Rs. 2,77,200/-.

13. In view of above, the impugned
awarded compensation by the learned
Tribunal appears to be in higher side and
the same is liable to be reduced to Rs.
2,77,200/- with 6% simple interest per
annum from the date of filing of the
petition as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.

14. With the above modification, the
appeal is finally disposed of. Interim
order if any shall stand vacated.
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The amount of Rs. 25000/-
deposited at the time of filing of affidavit shall
be remitted back to the learned Tribunal to be
adjusted against the awarded amount.

16.

Office
is
directed
to
communicate the certified copy of the
order to the learned court below for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A994

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2019
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

FAFO No. 2166 of 2015

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Parul Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri A.C. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rama Nand Pandey

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident claim - Motor
Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) - Section 168 -
Composite
negligence
Vs
Contributory
negligence - Distinction

„Composite negligence‟ - where a person is injured
without any negligence on his part but as a
combined effect of the negligence of two other
persons, it is a case of composite negligence. In
such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally
liable to the injured for payment of the entire
damages and the injured person has the choice of
proceeding against all or any of them - injured
need not establish extent of responsibility of each
wrongdoer separately, nor it is necessary for Court
to determine extent of liability of each wrongdoer
separately.
„Contributory negligence‟ - where a person
suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on
the part of another person or persons and
partly as a result of his own negligence, then
the negligence on the part of the injured
which contributed to the accident is referred to
as his contributory negligence. In such case
the damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence (Para 11)

B. Civil Law - Motor Accident claim -
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) -
Composite negligence of drivers of two
vehicles - Accident between a tanker and
a Scorpio four wheeler- Evidence driver
of the tanker vehicle driving rashly &
negligently - No evidence that driver of
Scorpio driving rashly and negligently -
Not making the owner or driver of the
Scorpio a party cannot cause prejudice
to the appellant (Para 12)

C. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Sections 166 & 168 - Selection
of Multiplier - Deceased aged about 42
years - Operative multiplier is 14 for the
age group of 41 to 45 years (Para 17)

D. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Sections 166, 168 - Future
prospects - Determination - Deceased
had permanent job, working as Store
Officer - Deceased aged about 42 years -
Addition of 30% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased (Para 18 & 19)

E. Civil Law - Motor Accident claim - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - Rule 220A(2)- Determination of compensation -
Deduction
for
personal
and
living
expense - 1/4th where dependent family
members are 4 to 6 - Minor dependent to
be counted as half - Half dependent
should be considered to be one in view
of the beneficial purpose of the law

Held - Number of dependent shown in the
petition 5 - UP Amended Motor Vehicle Rules,
2011 provides that two minors will make one
unit in determining the number of dependents
- considering that three of them were minor,
this number will come to three and half -